Category: Development

Using Africa’s black gold to fund a green future 

“Stabilizing the climate will require strong, rapid, and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and reaching net-zero CO2 emissions.” highlights IPCC Working Group I Co-Chair Panmao Zhai.  

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report makes for sober reading. The climate crisis is unequivocally caused by human activities and is affecting every corner of the planet’s land, air, and sea already. The fact sheet on Africa does not make for pleasant reading we will experience more heatwaves, more floods, more unpredictable weather, and more extreme weather events. The whole continent is vulnerable, our largely rain-fed agriculture, underdeveloped infrastructure, existing inequalities, and poverty will all amplify the impacts of climate change that are now certain.  

In a previous article, I advocated that we use climate change as an opportunity to harness science and technology and equip our farmers with tools to feed the continent in an era of shifting weather patterns. To leapfrog fossil fuel energy and lay the foundation of Africa’s economic and social development on green sustainable energy. 

This is still the case; however, not only must Africa innovate to mitigate the impacts of Climate change on the continent, but we also must fund it. The global commitment to provide US$ 100 billion a year is falling woefully short. Furthermore, as the Coronavirus pandemic has shown, when crisis strikes, Africa is left to fend for itself. As the impacts of climate change become more pressing and deadly, the rich world will focus increasingly on solving their own problems just as they have done with Covid vaccines.  

Thus, Africa must develop a financing strategy not based on the generosity of the rich world, the philanthropy of global billionaires, the whims of development banks or the iniquity of global markets. To do that Africa will have to make use of its own resources, and, in a delicious irony, Africa’s black gold, the oil, gas and coal can be used for this purpose. Not by burning it or digging out of the ground and selling it. But, by leaving it where it is and selling it as a carbon offset.  

The Financing Dilemma  

Because developing countries would be hardest hit by climate change yet have the least resources to invest in mitigation measures or invest in clean energy and sustainable solutions to our development needs. The developed world committed to mobilizing the finance necessary to do this. As a result, at COP16 the developed world agreed to an Accord, that states that: “developed country Parties commit, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries”.  

This goal has never been met. And with the impacts of the Coronavirus pandemic and the resources devoted by the developed world to their own needs, I am not hopeful that funding will materialise. Furthermore, the financing solutions being proposed are the same old, same old of “mobilising external financing and private-sector solutions,” which can be translated as getting money from donors and banks. That’s a formula that has not worked for 70 years.  

Using our black gold 

Africa’s natural wealth, especially oil has often been more of a curse than a boon, added to that, it is humanity’s use of those hydrocarbons that are the cause of the problem we find ourselves in. Thus, Africa finds itself with an odd problem, it would be mad not to exploit these resources, they are a vital source of income. However, it is that very exploitation that will come back and bite us as a cause of climate change.  

It is estimated that Africa has: 

  • 499 billion MMBtu (Metric Million British Thermal Unit) of proven gas reserves (7.1% of global proven reserves), 
  • proven reserves of 125 billion barrels of oil.  
  • Proven reserves of 36.7 billion metric tonnes of coal  

At the time of writing, the price of oil is US$ 68 per barrel, US$ 3 per MMBtu of Gas and US$149 per tonne of coal. Meaning that Africa has about 8.5 trillion dollars’ worth of Oil, 1.4 trillion dollars’ worth of gas and 5.4 trillion dollars’ worth of coal. While that may be their value, to get their true value you would have to factor in a heavy discount for the cost of developing the fields/mines, the profits of the oil, gas and coal companies and the environmental degradation and impact of their extraction. Beyond that, as the world moves away from hydrocarbons, these assets will become increasingly stranded as the world strives to buy less of them.  

Selling the oil without burning it  

Increasingly companies and governments are investing in carbon offsets and offset credits. A carbon offset broadly refers to a reduction in Green House Gas (GHG) emissions – or an increase in carbon storage (e.g., through the planting of trees) – that is used to compensate for emissions that occur elsewhere. A carbon offset credit is a transferrable instrument certified by governments or independent certification bodies to represent an emission reduction of one metric tonne of CO2 or an equivalent amount of other GHGs.  

The oil, gas and coal under African soil have an approximate equivalent of 53.7 billion and 114 billion and 91 trillion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide respectively1. Currently, carbon offsets sell at $3-5 per tonne, using a conservative price of $3 Africa’s oil, gas and coal assets would be worth $275 trillion. That may seem low but the price of carbon offsets is expected to rise to between $20-$50 within the next 10 years bringing them in line with the oil prices which would more than double those estimates.2 

Thus, rather than developing these assets, Africa can sell the potential carbon emissions as carbon offsets. Africa would sell the potential emissions from all that oil, coal and gas to companies and governments that want to emit carbon. This would do three crucial things. First, it would lock that carbon in the ground, if we are ever going to solve the problem of climate change, we must stop burning fossil fuels. Even though Africa has contributed the least to the current problem we can make sure we never become part of the problem by leaving that carbon in the ground. Second, it would give Africa an income stream that is wholly owned by Africa. No oil companies, no production sharing contracts, no royalties, and no drilling and mining projects that destroy ecosystems. That money can be spent financing Africa’s own green and sustainable industrial revolution and mitigating the effects of the damage already done by investing in our agriculture and infrastructure to ensure that they can cope with a changing climate. Third, it would remove our dependence on the generosity of the rich world, debt, or capriciousness of the market, giving Africa true ownership of its climate response.  

To make this a reality much smarter people than I would need to figure out key elements of turning our hydrocarbons into carbon offsets.  

  1. A mechanism for certifying hydro-carbon reserves and quantifying the potential carbon emissions.  
  2. A pricing strategy that does not put too many offsets onto the market at the same time to ensure that viable prices are kept.  
  3. A verification and enforcement mechanism to ensure that any reserves sold as an offset are not exploited and sold by those looking to have their cake and eat it too.  

Keep it in the ground  

Africa has contributed the least to climate change, yet we will bear some of its worst consequences. We cannot rely on the rich world to live up to aid and financial mobilisation promises if Africa is to deal with the dual challenge of climate change. That dual challenge is to ensure that our own development does not contribute further to climate change and that we put in place measures to deal with the consequences of global warming. We are not responsible for the past of others, but we must seize responsibility for our future.  

Selling the potential carbon emissions from African hydrocarbon reserves can be a critical tool in meeting that dual mandate. It will keep the GHG in the ground and maximise Africa’s contribution to ensuring a net-zero world. And it would give us the revenues to fund sustainable development and climate mitigation, on our terms, designed by Africans for Africans rather than at the World Bank or the Gates foundation.  

It may seem crazy, but oil, gas and coal may be just what Africa needs to stop climate change.  

Charity is not policy.

Our donors, who art abroad, hallowed be thy purse. Thy aid come in dollars and pounds. Thy will be done in our countries, as promoted by Bono. Give us this day, our yearly funding. And lead us not into self-reliance. But deliver us from ourselves. For thine are dollars, the pounds and the euros, forever and ever. Amen – Elnathan John – Becoming Nigerian: A guide

On the 24th of February Ghana became the first country to receive a shipment of Covid-19 vaccines through the multilateral Covax facility. Throughout the pandemic (and one could argue throughout the post-colonial period) Africa has been the worlds charity case. Asking for and receiving billions of dollars of donations of PPE, sanitation supplies, and now vaccines. While all of this is lovely it is highly problematic. Relying on the generosity of the developed world to help us respond to crises or define our development agenda is tantamount to giving up our agency over those same issues, and it allows our political leaders to outsource responsibility for development or crisis response.

While the lack of vaccines, testing capacity, PPE is blamed on hoarding by the rich world, which is true, it should also be blamed our own inability to manufacture vaccines, testing materials or PPE. This is down to the bad leadership which outsourced development policy to those, with money and good intentions with pet issues, those who think that intellectual property is more important than responding to a global pandemic.

As millions around the world get vaccinated and Africa, reliant on the charity of others gets left behind to become the Covid continent. Hopefully, it brings us to the realization that charity is not policy. Over the last year, I have devoted much (virtual) ink to looking at how Africa could re-imagine capitalism for itself, forge a post-pandemic vision of development, stimulate our economies and measures we could take to respond to the crisis. All of that is useless, if we do not take responsibility for our own development and recognize that charity is not policy.

The problem with charity as policy

The problems associated with development aid and assistance charity in Africa are well documented. The creation of bloated self-serving bureaucracies that have little or no impact while allowing ex-pats to live charmed lives on the continent. Trillions of dollars spent with little to show for it. The self-serving nature of most spending which is spent on consultants and companies from the originating country. The use of aid to push various geopolitical agendas and to buy the support of African governments. However, this is not the most corrosive aspect of aid and charity on the continent that comes in two forms.

First, it robs us of our agency. Our development agenda is decided in London, Berlin, Washington, Beijing, and Geneva, in board rooms at various foundations and charitable organizations. It rarely has anything to do with what the “targeted” African communities actually want or need. Should massive infrastructure projects be the focus of our development spending, maybe, or maybe not, but that agenda was driven by the multilateral development organizations. The various development fads of microlending, SME/entrepreneur/youth/gender empowerment, digital identity etc. have all primarily come out of western research and institutions. If African development is not driven by the stated wants needs and aspirations of its people, then it does not serve them but the agenda of others. Charity serves the agenda of those doing the giving, not the receiving.

Second, aid and charity enable governments to outsource their responsibilities. Why should the Nigerian government bother to provide real services to the people of the oil-rich Delta region when the Oil companies will spend billions in building schools, clinics, and roads as part of their CSR. Why bother devoting real resources and policy to healthcare, health research and public health finance if the Gates Foundation, US-AID, The Wellcome Trust, and other donors are all pumping money into it. When you outsource responsibilities, you lose control of them as others decide what the focus of the money will be. Thus, our health systems have severely undeveloped but critical elements (like blood services, non-communicable disease prevention, mental health treatment, pharmaceutical research development etc.) because donors have other issues (and more often specific diseases or issues) that they care about.

The impact of this is all too clear to see. Development when funded by aid and Charity is done to us rather than by us. And, when problems that are not a priority for donors, like a global pandemic, come to the fore we find ourselves without the capacity to properly deal with them.

Conclusion – taking back our agency

After its independence in 1947, India made a very deliberate choice, facing serious health challenges among its large population, one of the critical things that India needed to vaccinate millions of people against TB, Smallpox, Polio, and other infectious diseases. However, at the time, much like Africa today, India was reliant on the importation of often expensive pharmaceuticals and biomedicals. The Indian government very deliberately set about investing in indigenous pharmaceutical companies, enabling them to build up R&D capabilities and most importantly the capability to produce pharmaceuticals in India. By the 1990s when India’s economy was being opened up these companies combined rapid growth in their own large domestic markets with global partnerships and continued investment and supportive policy from the government to become global players. The greatest example of this is the Serum Institute of India (SII), set up in 1966 to produce immunobiological’s, it was a beneficiary of the Indian government’s policy and today is the largest vaccine producer in the world. The majority of the Covid vaccines delivered to Africa are made by the SII.

Doing away with charity as policy means taking a lesson from India’s book. Making, deliberate choices to invest in areas that will wean us off dependence. It may take us 20 years to build up the infrastructure to produce our own vaccines, but it will mean that the health of our people will no longer be reliant on whatever others have to spare to deploy programs like COVAX or GAVI.

This thinking isn’t just limited to the health sector but will require us to make very deliberate choices and investments in the design and deployment of our education systems, climate policy, food security, transport, and science and technology. Not just for jingoistic, populist reasons that sound good on the campaign trail, but to free critical aspects of our development from whims of charity and geopolitics and put them in the hands of Africans. If we do not, when the next crisis rolls around, Africa will once again find itself left behind, begging bowl held out dependent on the charity of others.

Forging social safety nets for Africa

Social safety nets are often seen as luxuries for rich countries. However, as we Kenyans say “2020 has shown us things”. Across Africa, the coronavirus has seen governments across the continent implement a raft of measures to cushion their citizens against the socio-economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. For instance, Togo rolled out an expanded digital cash transfer program called Novissi and South Africa has expanded its existing welfare and unemployment benefits system. And these are not isolated policies. Having shown that social safety nets are possible. The question shifts, from can Africa have social safety nets, to what should longer–term African social safety nets, that alleviate poverty and confer dignity look like. 

The need for a social safety net  

 The world of work and employment is changing. Formal employment is less common, and most Africans do not earn a living in formal jobs with regular paychecks. The informal jobs and agricultural work that provides the bulk of jobs on the continent often provide uncertain incomes. Compounding this is the fact that African socialism (also known as the black tax) is becoming harder. Incomes are more and more stressed, and it is becoming harder for individuals to extend support to the family, and the community that has in the past functioned as an unofficial safety for many.  

What is needed is an expansion of the African community spirit of Ubuntu to the core of our formal social contract, with the state through well designed social safety nets, and we can do this by designing and implementing sustainable safety nets.   

Defining a social safety net  

 The start of designing a safety net is defining its purpose. Which should be, in my mind, at its core about putting in place a floor beneath which society says its members cannot fall. It is not intended to replace work, or even disposable income, but rather to ensure that people do not fall into deprivation and desperation.  

The second critical issue is simplicity, which covers two key issues.  

1 – Simplicity of targeting. That the people for whom the safety net is intended are clearly defined, e.g. households that earn less than a clearly defined threshold, or even all adults over the age of 18.  

2 – Simplicity of access. A social safety net does not function if the people it is meant for cannot access it. Thus, unlike countries like the USA or UK, we cannot develop notions of the deserving or undeserving poor, which lock millions out of critical support. Thus, the means of accessing these support systems must be easy to understand, easy to find and easy to navigate.  

The third critical issue is the sustainability of funding. This means identifying and defining a long-term funding mechanism. Not a donor or simple year on year budget allocation that is subject to political changes every year. But a dedicated mechanism like a specific tax, or a percentage of royalties from natural resource extraction, will ensure significant funding over the long term. In addition, a broad, sustained funding mechanism fosters a broad feeling of everyone having skin in the game and creates broad social and political support for a safety that will ensure its long-term acceptability and stability.  

Forging the net  

So, with those critical elements in mind, what does an African social safety net look like. Each country would undoubtedly choose its own unique combinations, there are options on the table that are doable and can be made distinctly African. Not copying western systems but shaping them to our needs. Such as a universal health care system based on the provision of quality primary healthcare, that cushions people from the often crippling costs of healthcare and vastly improves the quality of life. Or a basic minimum income that lifts people out of poverty and gives them a basic level of peace and dignity. Or even community/locally based support systems that are run and funded by communities and directed to the things and people that they consider most pressing with central governments providing additional funding.  

Social safety nets are not a panacea for the socio-economic problems that the continent faces. However, they can be an important piece of the suite of solutions that drive our development. But beyond that social safety nets can reshape the relationship between African citizens and their governments. Moving away from the colonial relationship that, persists in far too many countries of the ruler who sometimes hands out goodies to the ruled masses. To one based on the government genuinely looking out for its people, recognizing their dignity, and placing it at the core of our development.  

Where next for Africa: a new vision for new development policy

As Africa continues to battle the public health crisis and the socio-economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, I have been amazed, befuddled and despondent all at the same time at the responses we have seen. How African medical professions have responded and coordinated with resources and budgets that are tiny in comparison to their international counterparts. How nations like Togo have moved to cushion their citizens and the ingenuity and innovation shown by individuals and companies have all given me hope. The hope that we have the imagination, drive, and generosity to confront and overcome any challenge. However, the police brutality and human rights abuses and in some cases the outright denial of the virus by some has also given me pause for thought and reminded us how easy it is for our demons to take advantage of a crisis.  

Like many, in both my work and my writing I have been preoccupied with, as Dr King once put it “the fierce urgency of now”. How do we stop the virus, protect livelihoods, and reignite our economies? These are all valid concerns that deserve significant thought and effort. However, it strikes me that we also could and should be thinking beyond the pandemic. Crafting a vision for our continent that takes advantage of the extraordinary opportunity before us.  

The global pandemic has broken norms, systems, and preconceptions, which had limited the range of possible actions and policies we were able to pursue. Out of crisis comes opportunity. 70 years ago, Europe used the devastation of a world war to remake itself as a bastion of social democracy and regional cooperation. That required vision. People who recognised that despite the devastation, there was an opportunity to break with the past and reimagine what Europe could be. And went on to sell those visions to politicians, and people to create a shared vision that could be worked towards. Today the member states of the EU may squabble, but they do not plunge into periodic globally destructive wars and their citizens enjoy a near border-less continent with broad strong social safety nets. 

What is our vision for our countries, regions, and continent? What can we rally around, work towards and achieve for us and our children? There is an opportunity to build a better Africa out of this global disaster and we must seize it.  

The system is broken, and the opportunity is open 

The global Coronavirus pandemic has fundamentally broken or changed a number of aspects of global politics, economics, and policy norms that Africa can take advantage of.  

1. Capitalism is being questioned  

Markets are powerful things that can do a lot of good. However, this pandemic has reminded us that when markets are skewed and inequalities exist those will be amplified by crisis, and, more fundamentally that markets cannot do everything. Public goods and services, like public health, cannot be privatised and subjected to market efficiencies without consequence. Markets must have limits. Out of their failure during this crisis, we can remake them, to be fairer and draw boundaries around where the logic of markets ends and the public good takes precedence and we can remake the social contract to have fair markets and strong public services reinforcing each other.  

2. Social safety nets are possible.  

Before the crisis things like basic income, housing for all, or UHC were all dismissed as too expensive, too unwieldy (especially for African governments) and potentially undermining hard work and personal responsibility. In a crisis that was no one’s fault, we have seen governments design and deploy large scale social safety nets like cash transfer programs and rapidly expand public health systems to protect the most vulnerable and deal with the crisis. This is can also be a reality beyond the pandemic, Basic incomes and universal health coverage can be done and will be powerful tools for ending poverty.  

3. We can make things  

The pandemic disrupted global supply chains and across the continent things that were once easy to import suddenly had to be made here. Lo and behold we have discovered that we can make things like Personal Protective Equipment, Ventilators and even our own tests. If we can make things, we must make sure we never end up in a situation where we cannot produce the medicines and medical supplies we need, where we cannot supply our construction industries or stock our shop shelves. In short, there is an opportunity to rethink our industrial policies (as I have previously written about) around industries and businesses that now recognise the need for resilient local supply chains.  

4. Corporate tax is cool again  

With all the government spending that is going on around the world, it will eventually have to be paid for somehow, and there are few better sources of revenue than the multinationals adept at gaming the system. As countries around the world clamp down on tax avoidance and evasion Africa can do the same. Reshaping its tax systems (as I have written about previously here) to tax profits where they are made. An Africa that can replace aid and debt with sustainable revenue is an Africa with her destiny in her own hands.  

5. Global political space 

Global geopolitics, for so long defined and defended by the USA is fragmenting. With the USA becoming more insular, China on the rise but untrusted, a Europe busy trying to hold itself together, Africa has an opportunity. To reject the notion that we are a playground for global power games and redefine ourselves as a leader on issues like climate change, tax and trade that have for so long befuddled others and negatively affected Africa. Even forge a new alliance with emerging and middle powers around the world who do not hold ambitions of domination but of shared prosperity and calm. 

6. We are young and hungry  

Millennials around the world are despondent cohort, our working lives defined by recessions, pandemics and polarising politics. However, in Africa, this is not necessarily the case. I am constantly amazed by the determination and refusal to give up that the continents young people display. Young African’s are inventing, innovating, and breaking barriers in culture, business, science, and politics. Rather than being depressed like our western counterparts we can be Generation Hope. We must harness the hustle, embrace the creativity, and nurture the deep yearning for a better tomorrow. A crisis of the magnitude we are experiencing now opens the door for us to experiment, to leap into the unknown led by a generation of hope.  

That vision thing  

In these opportunities, brought about by an unprecedented crisis, I see the space to construct a new development vision for our continent. A vision anchored in the dignity of our people. A vision that looks to achieve our own moon shots of ending poverty, disease, and desperation, where our fates are decided in our capitals rather than those in foreign lands. And where prosperity Is not built by climbing over the backs of others but through our innovation and drive that allows us to stand on the shoulders of each other.  

My writing usually addresses dry development policy subjects like budgets, trade, and labour policy, but fundamentally development policy is anchored in a vision of a better future. For the last 30 or so years, those visions in Africa have been stunted by uninspiring inhuman aims such as achieving middle–income status or industrialisation. The pandemic allows us to once again centre our development visions on the dreams of our people. Visions that we can identify with, rally around, work towards together and proudly proclaim our individual roles however small in achieving those goals.  

Without an underlying inspiring vision, our development policy is lost. It is misdirected into white elephant projects, filled with other people’s priorities, and spelled out in consultant gobbledygook and buzzwords. The crisis of the pandemic offers an opportunity to reclaim and reframe Africa’s development vision, let us seize it.  

Which Way for Africa? Development Policy in a changing world

Global political-economic realities are shifting. China’s economic growth has slowed to its lowest levels in 26 years. And in the rest of Asia key economies such as India and Japan are also facing lower than expected growth. Germany, Europe’s biggest economy is cutting growth forecasts as the EU struggles to find growth and grapples with Brexit. In South America, the two largest economies of Brazil and Argentina are struggling with a recession and debt respectively. And while the US economy is riding high at the moment it is beset by recession fears, and dominated by nationalist sentiment. Politically, the geopolitical certainties that have defined the post-cold war world (a strong and engaged USA, a non-aggressive China, a stable Europe, powerful multilateral institutions, and global norms that are respected and adhered to) are crumbling. All of this implies that the global economy and geopolitics that will be less stable, less cooperative and more competitive, right at the time when the global challenges of climate change, inequality and poverty require cooperation and consensus.

These dynamics have significant implications for African policymakers and leaders. As Africa is confronted by a changing world, we need to change our approach to and strategies for our development. We must ask ourselves what these changes mean for Africa, and how can we, as African’s take advantage of the oppurtunites and mitigate the risks.

What does this all mean for Africa

For Africa, these shifting global dynamics have three significant consequences.

  1. The path to development exploited by the Asian tigers is likely closed. This path relied on increasingly open global trade and capital flows to drive export-led development and Foreign Direct Investment. Globalisation is under pressure from an increasingly protectionist developed world that is seeking to protect its own stressed working and middle classes by restricting trade (or engaging in trade wars) and the decline in the influence of global norms and institutions that had sought to broaden the reach of global markets. This means that development strategies based on the Asian model of export-led growth driving industrialisation, employment and growth are less likely to succeed.
  2. The increased geopolitical competition will see Africa become a stage for global power competition, as they search for access to new markets, resources and diplomatic allies. This dynamic is already in full swing if one looks at the competing Africa strategies of the USA and China and a new focus on Africa from the EU and Russia.
  3. The traditional multilateral forums and institutions, like the UN, World Bank and IMF that helped drive development and have in large part defined development economics and policies since the 1950s, are losing influence and relevance. This means (hopefully in my view) that there will be more space for innovative approaches to development.

A shifting approach

A changing world requires a changing approach to the world from Africa, including our approach to development.

More space for new thinking

As stated earlier, the global multilateral institutions that have defined development thinking for decades are losing their influence and thus relevance. Beyond this, the great powers (namely the USA, China, EU and Russia) are primarily focused on domestic issues like faltering growth, fractious populist politics, inequality, and geopolitical competition in the Middle East and Pacific. What this gives Africa is the ideological and intellectual space to redefine development. Rather, than follow the lead of the World Bank or try to copy the Asian tigers, we have the opportunity to Africanise development (something I have previously talked about here). To decide what matters to us, how African’s envision their future and how we are going to get there.

Internal markets

As globalisation falters and countries become more protective around issues of trade, immigration and capital flows, we cannot rely on global trade and FDI to drive our development, something that African countries currently spend a lot of time trying to attract. Furthermore, outside of Asia, there are no significant high growth markets where we can build demand for African goods. What this means for us is that we can focus more attention on our own internal markets. On policies that foster intra-African trade, promote the growth of SME’s, enhance Agriculture, investing in science and technology and face up to the challenges of climate change together.

Focusing on our own markets and fostering growth that isn’t dependent on western capital looking for returns or Chinese demand for raw materials, will likely prove to more sustainable over the long term. It won’t be instantaneous and no one should expect miracles in the short term, but African markets are one of the last underdeveloped markets with high growth potential if we do not take advantage of our own markets someone else will.

Engaging smartly with competing powers

As the world shifts from being a unipolar dominated by the west/USA to one where there are competing world powers and interests, African leaders would do well to learn from the lessons of the cold war, and not latch themselves to one side or the other for better or worse. Rather, we need to understand and engage with the West and East strategically and cooperatively, acknowledging our own relative weakness in terms of economic, political and military power and having very clear achievable strategic goals. Using, smart consistent engagement with world powers to get the capital we need to help fund development.

A whole new world

A changing world can be seen as a problem or an opportunity. For Africa, I see it as an opportunity. One where we can reshape the development of the continent to one that happens on our own terms with the benefits accruing at home. However, it will be a problem if we do not change our approach to engaging with the world and development in a new global context. We may find ourselves at the mercy of global powers, with wasted investment in development strategies that are not applicable anymore. For the opportunity to become reality will require a coherent vision and then the boldness and imagination to execute it from our policymakers. Something, I have no doubt the continent possesses, the trick will be to harness it.

Give the People Money: Ending African Poverty with a Basic Minimum Income

“In this new century, millions of people in the world’s poorest countries remain imprisoned, enslaved and in chains. They are trapped in the prison of poverty. It is time to set them free… Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life” – Nelson Mandela

In my first post I outlined what I see as the goal of development. Which is to give everyone ability to live their lives with dignity. Which means an adequate and improving quality of life, economic opportunity and security, physical security and good governance. The antithesis of this is poverty, and ending poverty is Africa’s core developmental challenge.

Poverty, as defined by Professors Lilian Chenwi and Danwood Chirwa is ‘a state in which a person is unable to live a long, healthy and creative life, nor to enjoy a decent life worthy of self-respect and respect of others’ [1]. The simpler definition is having to live on less than US$ 1.9 a day. According to the World Bank approximately 43% or 330 million African are living in poverty.

Poverty is hard, grinding and often degrading. It manifests its itself in hunger and malnutrition, poor health, lack of education, and social and political discrimination. Poverty is often self-perpetuating, with those born into it often remaining in it because of the lack of opportunities and resources. Poverty is insecure as those living in it are most likely to be victims of violence and conflict. Poverty is the worst and most degrading form of underdevelopment, consigning its victims to unnecessarily harsh lives and wasting their potential. If nothing else, then Africa’s development must be defined by how it pulls its people out of poverty and allows them lead fulfilling lives and reach and exceed their potential.

To end poverty, we have to empower the people living in it. Those living in poverty are not there by choice, it is an accident of birth and circumstance. They lack the resources and the opportunity to climb out of poverty. The solution is thus simple, to provide Africa’s most underserved citizens with these resources and opportunity and we can do that by giving them money. By ensuring that every person living in poverty has a Basic Minimum Income (BMI), which they can use as they see fit to improve their lives. There is growing evidence from Africa that this works. That a BMI not only enables people to improve their circumstances but also to invest in their futures and it has positive impacts on health, education and security. If Africa is serious about ending poverty, then we have to seriously consider the option of a BMI.

Basic Minimum Income – the concept and evidence

The concept

A BMI is a relatively simple idea. It is a cash transfer that gives everyone in society who needs it enough money to live on. A BMI aimed specifically at relieving poverty would have 4 key characteristics that separate it from traditional welfare programs:

  • all members of society living below the poverty line are eligible to receive it,
  • the BMI is unconditional, you do not have to work, or go for any training to receive it,
  • it is enough to cover the basic needs of those who receive it,
  • It is guaranteed for as long as they are under the poverty line.

At its core the BMI is about guaranteeing a minimum standard of living throughout society through cash transfers to all those who for whatever reason are below the poverty. By its nature it is not discriminatory as it is available to all, neither does it subject the poor to the humiliations and bureaucratic nightmares of means testing, forced job hunts or training that are the hallmarks of modern day welfare systems.

The evidence

A BMI or some variant has or is being tried in various places across Africa, most notably South Africa, Namibia and Kenya, and the results show that not only does a BMI reduce poverty it also has significant impacts on the health, education, security and quality of life of those who receive it.

In South Africa the Social Security Agency (SASSA) distributes what are called social grants. Which are cash payments given to the most vulnerable groups in society and there are seven types of grant that the agency gives out.

Research done on the impacts of the social grant system has shown a number of significant impacts. First that social grant system has been sufficient to lift many households out of poverty (page 37 of this study). Second, the research shows that the grants in particular the child support grants have been crucial in reducing poverty in women headed households and empowering them in their homes and communities. Furthermore, the child support grant has enabled parents to be more positively involved in their children’s education, such as reading to them and helping with school work and ensure that their children were properly nourished and received healthcare. UNICEF studies has further shown that the child support grant has had a positive impact on school attendance and healthcare as well as reducing risky adolescent behaviour such as unprotected sex, drug and alcohol abuse and criminal activity.

In Namibia, in 2008 they piloted one of the worlds first basic income projects called the Basic Income Grant (BIG) in the Otjivero settlement and Omitara town. Both of which were noted for high rates of poverty, insecurity and poor health. The grant was simple, each person would get a monthly unconditional cash grant of 100 Namibian dollars (about US$7). With the grants for those under 21 going to their primary care giver, which was usually their mother. The report on the impacts of BIG shows details its positive impacts which are notable not only for being positive but also for how many areas of people’s lives it impacted.

  • Severe poverty was reduced by 54% and food poverty was reduced by 56% in one year.
  • There was a 36.5% drop in crime in crime in the areas where BIG was trialled.
  • Just six months after BIG was introduced child malnutrition dropped by 52%.
  • Drop-out and non-attendance rates at schools went from 30-40% to 5% after the introduction of BIG as parents were now able to pay school fees.
  • In contradiction to the arguments that a basic income would discourage work employment actually rose by 9% after the introduction of BIG.
  • BIG also helped people start and grow their own small businesses, as the extra income was used by people to start and/or invest in their own businesses as well increasing demand in the area as people now had some money to spend.
  • BIG also allowed people to save and invest in their futures. 40% of those who received the grant saved it. 31% used some of the money to fix their homes, 9% invested in livestock and 11% paid back debts.

Unfortunately, in 2010 due to politics the program was ended and essentially forgotten. What stands out is that it was able to achieve so much in reducing poverty and improving living standards over such a short period of time.

In Kenya a U.S. based charity called Give Directly which champions unconditional universal income cash transfers, trialled them in a village in Western Kenya between 2011 and 2012. With recipients receiving around US$ 274 over the course of the year, and the results are very similar to those in Namibia:

  • The transfers significantly reduced hunger, 30% overall and 42% for children.
  • The transfers enabled the recipients to invest in livestock and their own small businesses. With income from livestock increasing by 48% and income from self-employment increasing by 38%.
  • The transfers increased consumption and thus economic activity in the village.
  • The transfers led to increases in the psychological well-being of the recipients and their families.
  • Notably (again), despite the assertions of many critics the transfers did not increase spending on alcohol, tobacco or gambling.

The examples in South Africa, Namibia and Kenya show remarkably positive impacts not just in poverty reduction but in improving healthcare, education, the well-being of children, women’s empowerment, employment, security, small business start-ups and growth, and long-term savings and investment. Furthermore, the predictions that “they would just spend it on booze and gambling and entrench laziness” were also shown to wrong. These results show two things first that poverty is not a result of being lazy or bad, rather it is a result of being stuck in a poverty trap, where the lack of resources (namely money) prevents people from being able to live with dignity and plan for the future. Secondly, the impoverished are not stupid, given the resources and the opportunity they can and will make the right choices for them, their families and their communities.

How can we do this in Africa?

If the evidence shows that a BMI is an effective and empowering tool for poverty reduction in Africa the question then becomes, how can we do it? The usual response is that we can’t. That African nations do not have resources to fund such a program given the high levels of poverty on the continent and that governments have to invest in a number of areas such as infrastructure, education, healthcare, security etc. which over the medium to long-term will reduce poverty. My response to this is threefold, first, that poverty is an issue now and every single day for hundreds of millions of Africans. Secondly that short-term significant decreases in poverty will not increase economic growth but make it more sustainable over the long-term and third if we get creative we can find the money for BMI.

Finding the money

One idea for funding a BMI is called a negative income tax. The idea is that a progressive income tax system be implemented where people earning below a certain income threshold receive a payment from the government rather than paying tax to the government. This is offset by those who earn above the threshold who pay progressively higher taxes depending on their income. However, this requires a broad and deep income tax system which due to the lack of formal employment on the continent many African countries do not possess.

My personal preference is not to tax the income of Africans, but to tax the profits of those making money off of Africa, through more efficient and increased resource and foreign profit taxes. In a previous post I discussed how through reforming its tax systems, African countries could get more tax revenues from the extraction of natural resources and the profits made by foreign corporations in Africa. For too long Africans have not benefited from the wealth of their land that helps fuel the global economy and the profits made in Africa by global corporations are spirited away to the benefit of shareholders in New York or London. If African nations taxed those profits and resource extraction properly, much if not all of the money needed to fund a BMI could be found, governments would be able to continue to fund all the other things they use ordinary tax revenue for and the people of Africa would finally see the benefits of the fruit of their land. Furthermore, as the examples show a BMI would itself increase the tax revenue of governments. With disposable incomes people would be able to buy goods and services, save, invest and start businesses all of which are taxed by governments around the continent. And as people rise out of poverty, and their incomes grow and become more secure they can be gradually taken off the BMI, which would over time reduce the size of the payments that governments would have to make.

Africa will rise when we end poverty

The English writer Eli Khamarov once said that “poverty is like punishment for a crime you didn’t commit”. The hundreds of millions of Africans living in poverty are the victims of this cruelty, and through no fault of their own they have, as Nelson Mandela put it, been deprived of “a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life”. Since independence African leaders and policy makers have unfortunately made choices and implemented policies which have failed to break and, in some cases, caused and entrenched the cycle of poverty on the continent. However, Africa need not be defined by its poverty, Africa does not have to be the basket case of the world. There are still options and policies, like BMI, that our leaders and policy makers could make that could end poverty in Africa.

Some may ask, why this policy? East Asia and the West pursued the traditional poverty eradication path of industrialisation and this is what Africa is trying. However, there are two key issues of pursuing poverty eradication through economic growth and industrialisation. First, industrialisation takes time, even the quick industrialisation of East Asia took at least 3 decades. Secondly industrialisation is a painful and unequal process. In both East Asia and the West industrialisation has been accompanied by highly unequal distribution of wealth, terrible labour conditions and it hasn’t pulled everyone out of poverty, hence the need for social safety nets. And to this day there remains pockets of citizens in the worlds most industrialised economy who live in relative poverty. In addition, a BMI does not mean you must abandon a nations aspiration for industrialisation or socio-economic growth, rather I believe it would speed it up. It would help push people out of poverty now rather than in 30 years. It would ensure that no one is left behind by a changing economy. And importantly to the process of industrialisation would create a significant number of people with disposable income who will be able to buy locally produced goods and services.

The evidence shows that when empowered, when given the resources and the opportunity Africans living in poverty can and will rise. The solutions to the unfulfilled potential of our continent lies not in SDG’s, or debt fuelled infrastructure or the benevolence of the developed world, but in giving our people the tools to fulfil and surpass their own potential. To do that we must invest in them, we must address our central developmental challenge of poverty by ending it. To do so we have to be creative and brave. Exploring and implementing policies like a basic minimum income is a way to do so. Ending poverty in Africa will turbocharge economic and social growth, and it will also allow hundreds of millions of Africans to live lives of dignity, and if nothing else, that is development.

[1] The Protection of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Africa (2016), edited by Danwood Mzikenge Chirwa, Lilian Chenwi, p.12-13

Losing Our Mind: Reversing Africa’s Brain Drain

Africa has a migration problem. Not only are thousands of the continents young men and women risking life and limb to try and make it to Europe, we are also losing some of our best minds. A 2013 report from the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development found one in nine Africans with a tertiary education (2.9 million people from the continent) were living and working in developed nations in North America, Europe and elsewhere. Over the last 10 years this number has grown by 50% more than any other part of the world. Since 1990, Africa lost 20,000 academic professionals who left their countries and 10 percent of the continents highly skilled information technology professionals. The loss of Africa’s best and brightest is most keenly felt in the health sector, a study by Canadian scientists found that Sub-Saharan African countries that train doctors have lost $2 billion as the expert clinicians leave home to find work in the developed world.

The beneficiaries of this migration are the developed world. The findings of the study suggested that Britain was around $2.7 billion better off, the USA $846 million, Australia $621 million and Canada was $384 million better off. Yet in the developed world, particularly in the West a nativist, anti-immigration sentiment has taken hold. The places that have benefitted most from migration are becoming more hostile to it. This presents a perfect opportunity for Africa to tempt its doctors, engineers, artists, academics and other skilled professionals home. These people offer an unparalleled opportunity to boost our economies and enrich our societies, with the skills, capital, knowledge, networks and experience they could bring back home.

What is needed are the right pull factors to entice the diaspora to move back home. We need policies that make moving back to the continent more attractive.

 

Why the diaspora?

Development needs a skills and knowledge base. Healthcare systems need doctors and nurses to staff them. Infrastructure needs engineers to build them. The IT sector needs talented software and hardware engineers. And the private sector needs people with experience and global business networks if African business are to grow in a global economy. Africa could and should grow these capabilities, but that will take time, valuable time that we can ill afford to lose.

The diaspora offers the perfect way to jumpstart development with human capital. They could bring these much-needed skills, knowledge and networks into the economy while we continue to train more people. In addition, if they came home the diaspora would not only bring back the soft assets of skills and knowledge, they would bring back hard assets, money (in the form of savings and investment funds) that they would use to settle back at home, as well start and invest in businesses. In South Africa it is estimated for every skilled person who returns home to South Africa, nine new jobs are created in the formal and informal sectors. In China, educated skilled professionals, who left China to study and work, are returning. These “sea turtles” have come back with desirable skills, a network of international business contacts and new ideas to boost the economy. Elsevier (the publisher of scientific journals) has used its data to show that India is enjoying a brain gain of scientists returning to and moving to India (the study also shows a similar effect in China).

Thus, the question becomes, how does Africa turn its brain drain into a brain gain. What policies and measures are needed to make African professionals living in other countries want to move back home.

Making moving back easier

If the African diaspora are to be enticed to move back, then we must make it easer for them to do so. This means a smart mix of incentives that make it easier and attractive to move back to Africa.

Moving countries can be a complicated affair, not only do you have to move your stuff, but you also have to register with tax authorities, set up bank accounts and move assets, get all your documentation, insurance, get your children into school etc. Governments can do a lot to make this easier. First by making all of this tax free, the amount of money that governments would make from African migrants coming home and paying taxes on their fridge or money transfers is tiny in comparison to the value they would produce over years. Furthermore, these tax incentives should be extended to those who start new companies within a year of returning and to investments such as buying stocks, bonds and real estate. Second, allow for dual citizenship, this would allow diaspora migrants to become fully fledged citizens without facing the prospect of having to completely leave behind the lives they have built abroad. Coupled with this should be a fast track to citizenship, no one will migrate if they will be in an uncertain situation subject to the whims of an immigration officer, full citizenship will give them security. Third, making reintegration painless. Which means aiding migrants and their families settle in as painlessly as possible, such as helping parents find schools for their children, purchase health insurance and a one stop shop for getting all their official paperwork and documents. Ideally these are services governments should provide to all citizens, and trialling with diaspora migrants may be a way to pilot such a scheme before rolling it out for all. Finally, we must make it clear that we want our diaspora to come back home, that we value them beyond their jobs and financial assets. That our people are our greatest resource and the contributions they could make to our societies would help make economic, social and cultural development a reality. This can only be done by clear unequivocal statements from political leaders backed by policies which make the rhetoric reality.

Reversing Migration

Incentivising high skilled migration is something done by developed countries around the world such as the UK, Canada and Australia, now China is getting in on the game as well. All of them are seeking to attract high skilled migrants to fill gaps in their own labour markets and ensure they remain globally competitive. They all have policies aimed at attracting highly skilled, high earning migrants which fast track their migration and ease their integration into society.

Africa is not only not attracting highly skilled migrants, we are our losing our own highly skilled people, it is a situation that we should be actively looking to stop and reverse. Our hospitals lack the doctors and nurses they need to provide adequate care, our universities lack the professors and researchers they need to produce the next generation of leading minds and research, our governments lack expertise in any number of areas and our private sectors could desperately use people with high level skills, experience and networks. It will not be easy we are in a global competition for the worlds best and brightest, but we must start somewhere, and having the right policies to attract our diaspora brothers and sisters home is a good place to start.

Development or democracy? A false choice that creates bad policy

“We spoke and acted as if, given the opportunity for self-government, we would quickly create utopias. Instead injustice, even tyranny, is rampant”. – Julius ‘Mwalimu’ Nyerere

There is an ongoing debate fuelled by the perception that democracy has not delivered the development that was promised during the 1990’s and early 2000’s when many African countries bowed to domestic and international pressure and instituted multiparty democracies. The argument centres on the fact that while many countries have seen some economic growth it has not been nearly enough, and the continent continues to be plagued by persistent poverty. That if you look at the fastest growing economies on the continent, such as Rwanda and Ethiopia, they have strong leaders, who can push through big reforms and policy without all the political horse trading and gamesmanship that usually kills them. They then point to East Asia, pointing out that China, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore all developed under some form of authoritarian regime. In short, the argument is that by putting democracy before development Africa has put politics before development.

This, in my view, is nonsense, development at its core is about improving the conditions of people so that they may live their lives with dignity (I develop this more fully in this post). For that to happen policy and policymakers have to be responsive to the needs of their people and the people need to able to hold those wielding power to account. It is the only way to ensure that development remains the goal rather than the personal goals of the benevolent dictator in charge.

The arguments against democracy, and why they don’t apply

The argument most often trotted out in favour of benevolent dictatorship in the development vs democracy debate is what I call the Lee Kuan Yew argument after the former authoritarian prime minister of Singapore who charted the city state’s extraordinary development path. The argument is; that like Lee Kuan Yew, authoritarian leaders can commit to policies that ensure political stability, the rule of law and economic transformation. My response to this is simple, while Lee was ruling Singapore the vast majority of Africa was being run by a succession of autocrats, dictators, and despots. From Mobutu, to Amin, to Houphouët-Boigny, to Moi etc. (one could go on for quite a while with such a list), none of them brought long-term political stability, rule of law and economic transformation to their nations. Almost all of them were corrupt, saw the law as a suggestion, fostered division rather than national identity and enacted haphazard polices that privileged short-term personal and political interests that slowed, stopped or reversed development. The evidence from authoritarian rulers in Africa, Latin America and Asia shows that Singapore is the exception not the rule and Africa cannot afford to return to that.

The second argument brought to bear is that of East Asia. Many point to South Korea, Taiwan, China and Singapore who all achieved significant development under some form of authoritarian regime. However, this argument ignores the significant differences between these states and their African counterparts. First, apart from Singapore these states are relatively ethnically homogenous with a cultural and national identity that goes back centuries if not millennia, with a common history, culture, identity and language it is easier to forge a national consensus. Secondly South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore were all key strategic U.S. allies in the cold war. This meant that not only did they get significant economic assistance the West was willing to turn a blind eye to policies that they would have (and have) lobbied against in other countries that were key to the East Asian economic miracle, such as import substitution and the protection of domestic industries. Third, they all had ways of keeping leaders accountable in some way or form, in China for instance one must rise through the party and when in leadership you are accountable to the party. It’s not perfect but it enforces discipline and has broader goals than a singular despot.

Democracy as policy

So, what does democracy have to do with development policy? In my view the link is clear, democracy makes policy makers and political leaders accountable to the people. Thus, to gain and retain political power they must respond to the needs of the people. However, this does not seem to be the case, as voters on the continent are more frequently mobilised by ethnic or religious politics than by debates around the best path to development. However, the answer to this is not to get rid of it, rather it is to make democracy better. For the past 30 years democratic reforms on the continent have tended to focus on the man (it is almost always a man) at the top or the elections themselves, rarely on citizen participation, particularly informed participation. For development policy to meet the needs of people it must be responsive to the people themselves, and the answer to this is to look beyond elections. Elections, the act of regularly choosing our leaders in a fair process, are vitally important to democracy but they should not be the only feature. When that happens, it leads to what we see in Africa today, where the political debate and climate is focused on winning the next elections. Regular citizens tend to be forgotten until the next election campaign comes around. Thus, to my mind what is needed is a way to ground policy in views and needs of the citizenry.

In Botswana they have something called a Kgotla. A public meeting usually headed by the village chief, in which deliberations are conducted and decisions are arrived at by consensus. All residents in a village are entitled to attend and can speak. The results of these deliberations are then used to form the basis of district development plans and the 5-year National Development Plans, which are then passed by parliament as legislation that guides government policy. Since independence Botswana has not only experienced stable democracy but has also been the African economy that has grown the fastest and most consistently since independence. This has been in large part due to good leadership, which holds itself and its policies accountable to the people they govern. Unlike election campaigns where politicians promise things to people and we have to hope they can follow through while in office, this system of citizen participation ensures that the voice of the people, their concerns and their priorities are not only heard but are an integral part of the policy making process.

Vox populi vox dei – the voice of the people is the voice of god

When it comes to the democracy vs development debate, I do not see a debate, I see the wrong question. The question should be, how does Africa improve its democracies to make them more responsive to the needs of her citizens. One clear way to do that is to proactively ground the policy making process in a democratic process. To create a process, which doesn’t just invite people to comment on legislation (which some countries have) but actively seeks the views of the people whom the policy will affect. For instance, if a country wants to come up with a new agricultural policy it will actively go out and seek the views of its farmers from the subsistence farmers to the industrial farmers in an open and deliberative process that allows farmers to explain the challenges that face them and their ambitions for their farms, families and communities. This would help create a policy in which they have a stake and are willing to work for and with. More broadly by grounding the policy process in a democratic process it could make policy in Africa something that is done with, by and for the people rather than to the people, and achieve real development.

Africa can and should have universal healthcare.

WE ALSO COMMIT OURSELVES to take all necessary measures to ensure that the needed resources are made available from all sources and that they are efficiently and effectively delivered. In addition, WE PLEDGE to set a target of allocating at least 15% of our annual budget to the improvement of the health sector – Abuja Declaration 2001

In April 2001, the heads of state of African Union countries met and pledged to set a target of allocating at least 15% of their annual budget to improve the health sector. Yet almost decade later, not only have just a handful of African nations allocated the pledged amount of money to their healthcare systems, but Africa still has the worst health outcomes in the world (figure 1). The poor and vulnerable still have limited access to healthcare, the insurance and coverage schemes that do exist usually miss out those in the informal sector who make up a sizable portion of the African workforce. Despite some marked improvements since 2001 too many Africans are still falling victim to diseases that could be prevented, too many Africans are being made bankrupt paying medical bills for friends and family and far too many Africans are going without the care they need lowering their quality of life.

Figure 1 source: Angus S. Deaton and Robert Tortora, People in Sub-Saharan Africa Rate Their Health And Health Care Among The Lowest In The World 2015, Health Affairs

 

If we are to think of development as being people centred, then the health of the people is crucial. Quality of life (not to mention length of life) improves significantly when everyone has access to quality healthcare at an affordable cost (which is the WHO’s definition of universal healthcare[1]). If Africa is serious about development we must get serious about healthcare, and the best way to do that is through pursuing universal healthcare. Many will say this isn’t possible, it is too expensive, or African countries simply do not have the resources, however both Botswana and Rwanda show that not only can universal healthcare be done in Africa, but there is more than one way to do it. Thus, the question African policy makers should be pursuing is what do we have to do create quality, affordable healthcare with access for all.

Lessons from Botswana and Rwanda

Rwanda and Botswana have slightly different ways of implementing universal healthcare. Botswana operates a fully public system where the governments owns over 95% of healthcare facilities. The system is built around the delivery of primary healthcare which is available through an extensive network consisting of;

  • 844 mobile stops and 338 health posts which deliver primary preventative care to all it is citizens;
  • 272 clinics (101 of which have beds) which provide outpatient and general inpatient care;
  • and finally, there are the district hospitals and the two referral hospitals which provide long term and complex care and procedures.[2]

Almost all services are free except people between the ages of 5 and 65 pay 5 pula (‘USD’ or ‘$’ 0.50) for general check-ups.

Rwanda pursues universal health through a mandatory health insurance system called Mutuelles de Sante. The scheme is community based, residents of a particular area pay about ‘USD’ or ‘$’ 6 into a community insurance pool, richer citizens are charged higher premiums and for those who can pay a 10% service fee is paid for each visit to a health centre or hospital. Like Botswana Rwanda’s system is decentralised and built around providing primary care through;

  • 34 health post which do outreach activities such as immunisations, antenatal care and family planning;
  • 18 dispensaries and 442 health centres which provide preventative and primary care, out and inpatient services and maternity care;
  • 48 district hospitals which provide inpatient and outpatient care and 4 referral hospitals which provide specialised complex care.[3]

In both countries over 90% of the population have access to affordable healthcare whose quality has seen significant improvement over the last decade.

Botswana and Rwanda hold valuable lessons for policy makers on the continent. The first and most important being that universal healthcare is possible. Secondly multiple funding models are available and there is no reason that you cannot mix match payment, insurance and tax revenue to pay for it. Third, to be effective, primary and preventative health must be at the centre of the system. Primary healthcare focuses on people and their communities, by providing preventative and early continuous care and education, treatment of illnesses before they become life threatening and the early identification of serious health issues that require specialist treatment. Fourth you need appropriate infrastructure, specifically clinics, dispensaries and health posts/centres that are situated in communities around the country and are just as important as big hospitals. If you only invest in big hospitals they will end up being crowded with patients who could have been more effectively treated in facilities in their own communities. Investing in community health centres and facilities ensures that everyone has access to healthcare close to home and that large hospitals can take care of those who need the most help. Finally, we need to invest in people, and this strikes me as part of the solution to an existing problem. Africa has far too many young men and women who are educated but unemployed, to me this presents an untapped pool of administrators, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and clinical technicians who would be needed staff a universal health care system.

Health as development

Universal healthcare in Africa is achievable but only if our governments begin to think of healthcare as just as important to development as roads, power, jobs and education. Fundamentally healthier people are happier people. Universal healthcare will significantly improve the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people, it would take away the spectre of going broke because you, or a relative got sick and it could provide millions of meaningful jobs for young men and women who would jump at the prospect.

In 1948 Great Britain was broke and had just come out of two devastating world wars in the space of three decades, yet it was in that year that they launched the National Health Service which was and still is based on 3 principles; ‘That it meet the needs of everyone, that it be free at the point of delivery, and that it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay.’[4] Today, the NHS is the institution that the British are most proud of. Today, like Britain in 1948, Africa is not rich and faces a myriad of challenges, but we can and should dream big, that all Africans should all have access to quality affordable universal healthcare. If development in Africa is to mean anything surely it must mean that Africans can live full and healthy lives, it is time to bring the Abuja declaration to life.

 

 

 

[1] http://www.who.int/health_financing/universal_coverage_definition/en/

[2] http://www.gov.bw/en/Ministries–Authorities/Ministries/MinistryofHealth-MOH/About-MOH/About-MOH/

[3] http://www.hrhconsortium.moh.gov.rw/about-rwanda/health-system/

[4] https://www.nhs.uk/nhsengland/thenhs/about/pages/nhscoreprinciples.aspx

What is Development?

Freedom should not be understood to mean leadership positions or even appointments to top positions. It must be understood as the transformation of the lives ordinary people in the hostels and the ghettos; in the squatter camps; on the farms and in the mine compounds. 

It means constant consultation between leaders and members of their organisations; it demands of us to be in constant touch with the people, to understand their needs, hopes and fears; and to work together with them to improve their conditions. – Nelson Mandela

This is the question at the centre of the African story, at least when it comes to policy, yet we do not seem to have that discussion, leaving it open to be defined by those in power rather than those whose lives its supposed to change. In academia the question as to what development is much debated but it has failed to leave the confines of the ivory tower and development aid industry. Today development is too much like beauty, it’s in the eye of the beholder, every time the government builds a footbridge or a railway it claims development, economists and business leaders look at economic growth figures and call that development, the UN looks at the Human Development Index and Sustainable Development Goals and calls that development. What about the people, those for whom this development is being done, it seems to me that if the vision of development being pursued was one that came from the people, then governments and international development agencies may have more success pursuing it.  A policy shift to people centred development, that actually takes what people want and need into account would in my view make the whole notion of development much more relevant and impactful.

Roads, railways and power.

Most of the continent is busily pursuing the infrastructure gap, which can be summarised as the need for infrastructure (roads, railways, power, water and sewage systems, housing etc.). In Africa the African Development Bank has estimated that Africa needs 95 billion US dollars a year to close its own infrastructure gap[1]. Governments have latched onto this and across the continent there is a massive building program being pursued. Physical infrastructure is perfect politically, its tangible and can (if done properly) make an impact on people’s lives, without the complicated political, administrative and moral issues that come with improving education or fighting corruption. Business and banks love it because they can make significant profits funding roads, railways and power stations while saying they are contributing to ‘development’. Infrastructure is important, there is no doubt about it, a road connecting a rural community to an urban market can radically increase opportunities, electricity has and can change the lives of the poor the world over, but is it development? I don’t think so, I see infrastructure as an enabler, a building block towards development, but not development itself.

GDP growth and jobs

You cannot have a conversation about development without someone bringing up GDP growth numbers. Despite academic attempts to dethrone economic growth as the primary indicator of development it is the standard statistic that people cite. But what does GDP growth actually tell us? GDP is the value of all the goods and services produced in an economy in any given period (usually quarterly or annually). So, when it grows, it means that the country is producing more things and as a whole earning more. However, it doesn’t tell you important details such as who is earning more – are the rich getting richer or is the additional income being spread to the middle and lower income groups. It doesn’t measure standard of living, or the quality of social goods such as healthcare and education. It is just an aggregate, a useful one but without context and additional data it doesn’t tell you whether peoples lives are actually improving. When people point at GDP growth and call it development, take it with a pinch of salt.

Ask the people?

What is missing from the development debate for me is the people, most of whom are still stuck without meaningful employment or prospects of progress, far too many living in poverty. What does development mean to them. I think at its core, development would be the ability to live a life with dignity. A life where our children have a decent education that gives them a chance at a future where families can rely on the health care system and have adequate housing. A job to support you and your families. A police force and courts that are fair and protect society and a government that respects our rights. Thus, to me development is about growing the economy in such a way that provides jobs and income for the majority, building the infrastructure that enables this, investing in social services that improves quality of life and the rule of law and respect for human rights. Development isn’t just about jobs, or growth, or new roads and power stations, to me it’s about uplifting the lives of Africans, and our development policy, whether economic, education, infrastructure or law and order has to have that as its goal. But that’s just me, ideally, we should start by asking the people. Governments around the continent would benefit from broad consultation process to see what their citizens consider development and make their policy on that basis.

follow @afriwonk on twitter to get the latest post every week 

[1]https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Africa%20Econo%20brief%202_Africa%20Econo%20brief%202%20(2).pdf